Misplaced Pages

User talk:Durova: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:12, 15 December 2006 editDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits Re: AWilliamson / Joan of Arc vandal← Previous edit Revision as of 02:59, 16 December 2006 edit undoDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits Help needed: sleuthingNext edit →
Line 32: Line 32:
:Well golly, with a compliment like that how can I refuse? I'll see what I can do to help. Cheers, <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC) :Well golly, with a compliment like that how can I refuse? I'll see what I can do to help. Cheers, <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
::] who performed the original indef block agreed to look into this at about the same time when I started to dig around. My impression of the situation is that this is very probably a sockpuppet, and if so this deserves the same indef block as the sockmaster account, but I'll defer to an admin who has more history on the case. Hail me again if you think it's necessary. Best wishes, <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 03:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC) ::] who performed the original indef block agreed to look into this at about the same time when I started to dig around. My impression of the situation is that this is very probably a sockpuppet, and if so this deserves the same indef block as the sockmaster account, but I'll defer to an admin who has more history on the case. Hail me again if you think it's necessary. Best wishes, <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 03:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Deskana wanted that onto ] again. These guys have started several ANI threads without a nibble so I did some detective work. Mainly I'm looking into the sockpuppetry charge, which is by far the most serious. Not everything I see checks out so far. I've left a long post on the RFC talk page to ask for more information. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 02:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


== Midnight Syndicate == == Midnight Syndicate ==

Revision as of 02:59, 16 December 2006

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting --~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

If you've come here to discuss my actions as an administrator, please read this disclaimer.
Archived talk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Re: Striver User page

I have read your post on Striver user page and cannot control myself not to reply it here. First supposition you have is that Muslim or those you were attacked by USA enemy had anything to do with 9/11. Which me (and I think striver may be too) do not accept. Those who attacked on Iraq and Afghanistan are bigger terrorist then OBL and no doubt in my mind that Bush has no comparison in terms of superiority as a terrorist as compare to OBL. --- ALM 14:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You read too much into my words. My post did not suppose what you claim it supposed. In fact, as someone who joined the armed forces only because my family had nearly been killed, I viewed politics from a perspective unusually suited to criticize Bush: I think anyone on earth is more likely to take up arms when they believe their own family is threatened.
My message to Striver objected to a broad sarcastic statement that slurs all United States servicemembers. That - in its own way - is as objectionable as any broad sarcastic statement against any large group of people. The world would be a more peaceful place if people on all sides stepped away from that sort of thinking. Durova 15:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I was in USA working in "Silicon Valley" as a software engineer when 9/11 happened. I never thought bad about USA and used to do work all day sincerely to earn money and respect.
When 9/11 happened (please believe me I has nothing to do with it) "they" made my life "miserable". What I meant from miserable? Due to the risk for my family (my son and my wife) I cannot to explain those post 9/11 events related to my life here in detail but I wish you can imagine them yourself. Should I also go and take arms? Against whom? I have many American friends; those nice people had nothing to do what happened with me. Hence I tried to forget those post 9/11 events related to me (but not sure I can ever forget those). However, unlike me, you choose a different path which was not a right path.
See, my only brother is currently a solider in Army and my father is a retired Army Col. However, I wish my brother never joined Army and I do not like Pakistan Army. Because my brother might be sincere but then some ugly general send him to kill some innocent person. My brother talks with me to giving life while fighting with enemy. But what if he lose his life, fighting with someone who was not an enemy? It is because he will go on the mission told to him by idiot Pakistani Bush (Mr. Musharraf), and with all his sincerity I really doubt about those mission and those fake enemies. Those solider might be good people with good aims but those mission might not be good to go.
USA is responsible for each civilian killed in Iraq because of sectarian violence there. Because that violence was not there before the "invasion". There was peace before they arrived. They enslave countries, bomb them and given them civil wars as gift. --- ALM 16:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I read it before going to the ANI comment. If i had read those first, i might have ended up being offended, but reading your sincere and open message, i can not help but understand that my user page contributed to you feeling uneasy. I apologies for that, and i will try to take steps in order to help avoid or lessen the risk of that in the future. Thanks again and peace. --Striver 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Striver. And ALM, your post is a vague in some details, but if somebody discriminated against you after 9/11 you have my sincere sympathies. One of the tough parts about undertaking military service is that a person doesn't know exactly what the larger policies will be or what they'll be ordered to do. If someone in power makes a bad decision then those further down can only refuse to perform their part if the order violates the law. When I was on deployment I volunteered to stand extra armed watches because I thought - if anyone has to fire this weapon, let it be me and not some poor kid who's just trying to earn money for college. Instead of firing on anyone I was able to help save lives, but that was mostly the luck of the draw. Durova 20:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Request from GuardianZ

GuardianZ has been blocked from Misplaced Pages and is unable to edit beyond his/her user talk page. He/she left a {{helpme}} asking that you be contacted since you might be able to help. Please see the comment on his/her talk page. —PAN 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replied but the advice didn't take very well. Durova 03:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

I know you're probably busy; but I've been impressed with the way you handle disputes (like Charun) and the creative solutions you come up with for such problems as school ip vandalism, and the suicide threat.

I stumbled across this RFC Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell, and it looks like something you might be able to help with. I provided my opinion, but the requester really seems to want admins to respond, and your admin tools might help you to see some things (from deleted articles, etc) that could possibly clarify the sockpuppetry accusations (though if checkuser couldn't confirm it, maybe your admin tools wouldn't be much help after all). Anyway, if you wouldn't mind taking a look at it I'm sure everyone involved would be grateful. ~ ONUnicorn 22:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well golly, with a compliment like that how can I refuse? I'll see what I can do to help. Cheers, Durova 22:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Deskana who performed the original indef block agreed to look into this at about the same time when I started to dig around. My impression of the situation is that this is very probably a sockpuppet, and if so this deserves the same indef block as the sockmaster account, but I'll defer to an admin who has more history on the case. Hail me again if you think it's necessary. Best wishes, Durova 03:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Deskana wanted that onto WP:ANI again. These guys have started several ANI threads without a nibble so I did some detective work. Mainly I'm looking into the sockpuppetry charge, which is by far the most serious. Not everything I see checks out so far. I've left a long post on the RFC talk page to ask for more information. Durova 02:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Midnight Syndicate

You say that some of your diffs were removed by a clerk? That may have been a mistake; we are training up some new clerks. Can you give me a diff so I ca see what happened? You should be able to enter any evidence you want on the evidence page except diffs from a formal MedCom mediation. Ask me if you have any questions. Thatcher131 02:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)]

It was in the original request (not the evidence page) under evidence of previous attempts to resolve the dispute. Durova 02:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Compare that to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel#Involved_parties. In the other case, my attempt to resolve the dispute was allowed to stand as a basis for opening the case against User:Agapetos angel where another editor presented my name in a context that implied I had tried to talk with AA and she had refused. Actually she had requested that I initiate an overture and the editors who opened the case against her had basically ignored me; then they cited my failed mediation attempt as a reason for opening the case. I strongly objected because she had actually proven so cooperative at a previous RfC that I had awarded all the editors on that page a collective barnstar. So since that evidence was allowed to stand (which essentially dragged me into arbitration) I don't see why similar evidence I submitted myself got deleted from an equivalent presentation. Durova 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, what happened was that you placed it in the hidden template section, , so I reverted, and then placed it in the proper section. Dionyseus 02:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Durova 02:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It was then left out when the case was formally opened. There is no place in the opened case main page template for evidence of prior DR. I suspect that the arbitrators want to see prior DR on the main RFAR page to help decide whether to take the case, but don't want it on the main page of the opened case. (Likewise, there is no section for "proof you contacted the other parties" since when making an application, it is important that it not be a stealth filing, but when the case is opened, the clerks do the notifications). I see no reason you shouldn't add it to your evidence section. If you think it shows good faith on the part of one but not another party, you could highlight that by proposing a finding of fact on it. Hope this helps. Thatcher131 02:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Thatcher. About the only thing it would demonstrate is evidence that I tried to work things through with these editors. When I reviewed the matter I really couldn't come out and say one party seemed more cooperative or rules-abiding than the other. If you think the committee would value those diffs at this stage I'll present them again. Otherwise I'll strikethrough the first paragraph of my statement. What it looked like to me was a business dispute that drifted onto Misplaced Pages - a situation for the committee's discretion rather than my own. Durova 02:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what they will want. If you would rather not present formal evidence you could add the diffs into your statement on the main page. Probably they'll both get page banned or probation; if you think your diffs might mitigate a finding that they were disruptive they might help the arbs. Thatcher131 03:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh, if I thought my diffs mitigated this situation I wouldn't have opened the case request. I'll go ahead and modify my statement a little. Thanks for the help. Durova 03:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: AWilliamson / Joan of Arc vandal

Durova, after investigating the archives of Talk:Joan of Arc I find myself convinced that a checkuser on User:EReference is warranted. However, if I'm reading WP:RCU properly, we need to wait until the matter of a permaban for Williamson and socks is resolved, because the alleged violation is essentially a "Vote fraud on ongoing vote", and the RCU page says to wait until after the vote is concluded to report the sock. Alternatively, we could just note in the WP:ANI thread that EReference is suspected to be a sockpupet, as you've already implied in your latest post there. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's really need to state that more explicitly there. Durova 23:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)